Prevents auto import in module: "none"

[hardikkoul]

Fixes #55256

[typescript-bot]

This PR doesn't have any linked issues. Please open an issue that references this PR. From there we can discuss and prioritise.

[andrewbranch]

Looks like the test is failing 😕

[hardikkoul]

Looks like the test is failing 😕

yeah , just saw that , checking it out.

[hardikkoul]

Hey @andrewbranch , as i was not much familiar with the fourslash testing framework, so had to do some research and with some hit and tries the tests are passing now, Please review and verify once if some things need to be changed.

[andrewbranch]

🤔 What is this?

[hardikkoul]

🤔 What is this?

haha just trying the same thing to exclude it by using include with "!" , read it somewhere if exclude is giving error try including with "!".

[hardikkoul]

@andrewbranch , please review and assist me if more changes required as im not good at writing tests

[andrewbranch]

It turns out the behavior was already working as intended, but it was untested, so I’ve added two tests. --module none only errors when --target is below es2015, and auto-imports were already prevented in that case, and not in the others. (Like I said, --module none is pretty broken and possibly meaningless.) Thanks for your patience!

[hardikkoul]

It turns out the behavior was already working as intended, but it was untested, so I’ve added two tests. --module none only errors when --target is below es2015, and auto-imports were already prevented in that case, and not in the others. (Like I said, --module none is pretty broken and possibly meaningless.) Thanks for your patience!

ohhh , thats a relief to know that it was working already, anyway im analyzing the test you wrote , really helpful :) thanks for your help !!

[andrewbranch]

I would say, “working” here means auto-imports agrees with whether or not --module none allows imports to be written. Whether --module none itself is “working”... 🤷 There have been lot of ideas about what --module none could mean if we wanted to try to make it more consistent:

• You're never allowed to write module constructs (what you assumed, I think)
• You're not allowed to write modules, but you can use dynamic import() calls
• You're not allowed to write modules, but import type imports would be allowed and wouldn't make the file a module
• Any module constructs you write are allowed, but never transformed to a particular output module format

I think potentially any of these might be on the table for the future, we just haven’t had a reason to pull the trigger on any of them. So the current state is... pretty weird.

[hardikkoul]

I would say, “working” here means auto-imports agrees with whether or not --module none allows imports to be written. Whether --module none itself is “working”... 🤷 There have been lot of ideas about what --module none could mean if we wanted to try to make it more consistent:

* You're never allowed to write module constructs (what you assumed, I think)

* You're not allowed to write modules, but you can use dynamic `import()` calls

* You're not allowed to write modules, but `import type` imports would be allowed and wouldn't make the file a module

* Any module constructs you write are allowed, but never transformed to a particular output module format

I think potentially any of these might be on the table for the future, we just haven’t had a reason to pull the trigger on any of them. So the current state is... pretty weird.

omg this is a lot, hahaha and yes i did indeed assume that its possible to write module constructs , current state as it seems is actually weird ngl , hahaha

[hardikkoul]

@andrewbranch , did i just contribute to TypeScript? :D , kind of i guess XD

[HolgerJeromin]

It turns out the behavior was already working as intended,

I do not understand. With typescript ts5.2.2 I still get bogus, file breaking autosuggestions in my modules:none code:

Was that changed after branching ts5.2?
At least THIS PR does not fix my #55256

[andrewbranch]

If you accept the import, do you get an error?

[HolgerJeromin]

Moved the discussion back to the main issue (which I am not allowed to reopen).